G.R. No.

L-47745 April 15, 1988

JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA JR., NORMA A. YLAYA
PANTALEON A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III, LUCY A. AMADORA, ROSALINDA A.
AMADORA, PERFECTO A. AMADORA, SERREC A. AMADORA, VICENTE A. AMADORA and
MARIA TISCALINA A. AMADORA, petitioners
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS, VICTOR LLUCH
SERGIO P. DLMASO JR., CELESTINO DICON, ANIANO ABELLANA, PABLITO DAFFON thru his
parents and natural guardians, MR. and MRS. NICANOR GUMBAN, and ROLANDO VALENCIA,
thru his guardian, A. FRANCISCO ALONSO, respondents.

Legal Dispute: The case involves a legal dispute regarding liability for the death of Alfredo
Amadora, a high school student who was fatally shot by a classmate in the premises of
Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos.
Facts:
• Alfredo Amadora was fatally shot by a classmate, Pablito Damon, at Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972.
• The victim was 17 years old and was in the school auditorium for a legitimate
purpose, either to finish a physics experiment or submit a physics report.
• The petitioners (Amadora's parents) filed a civil action for damages against the
school and various individuals, including the physics teacher.
• The complaint against the students was later dropped.
• The Court of First Instance of Cebu held the remaining defendants liable for
damages, but the decision was reversed on appeal.
Reliefs Prayed For: The petitioners sought damages, including death compensation, loss
of earning capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, and exemplary
damages.
Issues:
• Whether the school or its authorities can be held liable for the death of Alfredo
Amadora.
• If liable, who among the respondents should be held accountable.
Holdings: The Court found that none of the respondents, including the school or its
authorities, were liable for Alfredo Amadora's death.
Reasoning:
• The Court interpreted Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which holds teachers or heads
of establishments of arts and trades liable for damages caused by their students
while in custody. The interpretation extended liability to both academic and non-
academic schools, with the teacher-in-charge responsible for enforcing discipline
over students.
 • Alfredo was still considered to be in the custody of the school authorities when he
was fatally shot, even though the semester had ended, as he was within the school
premises for a legitimate purpose.
• The physics teacher, assumed to be the teacher-in-charge, was not found negligent
in enforcing discipline, and the school had exercised due diligence in maintaining
discipline.
• The absence of the teacher-in-charge at the time of the incident was not considered
negligence.
• The school itself could not be held directly liable; only the teacher or the head of the
school could be held responsible.
Resulting Legal Rule/s:
• Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are liable for damages
caused by their students while the students are in their custody.
• The responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues as long as the
student is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises.
Disposition: The Court found that none of the respondents were liable for Alfredo
Amadora's death and, therefore, could not extend the requested material relief to the
petitioners.